I dont see the point. I just see two different embodiments of all the same design principles (location, naming, addressing, resolving, formating...). There is NO difference (despite huge threads claiming the contrary for PGP). Ive yet to really see any difference in the logic foundations of webid/semweb, contrasting with X.509/PGP theory. Its cute that folks use de-referencing (and folks think like a compiler writer). But, its not how mom and pop think, while trying to quiet the screaming 2 year old ... in a panic because his PGP key icon on his iPad has suddenly turned red. Now, what matters is that folks KEEP *wanting* to link up to a PGP key. Its spirit as a branded movement prevails, and evil other technologies are less welcome (even if more useful). it was fun working with the PGP Corp folks, when I was at VeriSign. Beware what you believe in, as consumer. Someone probably seeks to profit from you, and it may have nothing to do with the cash you pay. The same goes for semweb folks, since DARPA funded most of the original data mining rationale, for the technology we are using here. UK probably pays a US firm to perform such data mining on its behalf (its illegal for the UK to do it, but not consume when someone else does what is illegal to do locally, since the laws were "carefully" framed to only APPEAR to offer public assurance). Now, before Henry rants about me being some kind of nut or paranoid, Ill remark that while I critize the US a lot, US folks in higher crypto circles trusted me personally (as a damn untrustworthy, red-starred foreigner) in ways that equivalent folks in the UK never did. I thus reciprocate that favor (by focussing on ensuring US folks generally get to make new markets with crypto and develop new opportunities - a philosophy which seems to please the way US folks think about their core human value as a society). For therein lies the same basis of trust as PGP finds. Its consumable, and its workable. I want to (and therefore I do). > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:13:10 +0100
> From: melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> To: kidehen@openlinksw.com
> CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PGP aside
>
> On 29 December 2011 17:48, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> > On 12/29/11 6:17 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29 December 2011 10:31, Mo McRoberts<mo.mcroberts@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A brief aside, which may or may not be of interest to WebID folk.
> >>>
> >>> I was reading through the OpenPGP spec last night, and noticed section
> >>> 5.2.3.18 which describes the â€œPreferred Key Serverâ€